I did enjoy the film it had some trademark Tarantino style to it and some great dialogue.

It's relatively over the top in terms of the violence kind of similar to Kill Bill in that respect.

Overall I enjoyed the movie...But....

I was expecting a throwback to the Spaghetti westerns that Tarantino loves (His fave film is Good, bad and Ugly). In that respect I was disappointed, Kill Bill had more spaghetti western charm than this did.

This is a far more complex film which deal with Slavery and the moral repugnance of the southern slave owners, which contrasts well with the moral authority of the German King Schultz, who is a contradiction in himself being that he is a Bounty Hunter. But I think Tarantino wanted to show A German being appalled by the barbarity of the uncivilised Americans, which is a mirror image of the way Germans were shown in Basterds.

All this is very interesting to be sure, but you are expecting Django to be a bit more kick ass? Well that's the thing, as an action movie I don't think it worked very well.

The conversational scenes were far better for me than the action/violence scenes and in fact I was not impressed with the action climax which is inevitable from the first few scenes.

I think the film my have been a better film overall by simply exploring the whole slavery issue without the quick draw, brain exploding Bounty Hunter action.

Tarantino appears in the film as usual, but with a surprisingly good English accent and only very briefly LOL.

Overall enjoyed the movie more than I did Basterds, but not as much as I liked his previous films prior to that.

I do want to point out some very brilliant performances

First of all

Christopher Waltz, is again brilliant in this, what a fine actor.

Leo DiCaprio - As always mesmerising, again a fine actor on his game and I think perhaps a Supporting actor nod for him? He overplays it so well, that every scenes he is in, you cannot take your eyes from.

SLJ - Took me a moment to recognize him when he first appears, but it is a creepy and menacing performance from Jackson.

Jamie Foxx was particularly underwhelming IMO, nothing interested me about his character at all, but there is so many great small little roles in this and mixed with the big 3 I mentioned it's still a master class of acting.

Oh and Don Johnson, brilliant as the only briefly on screen Big Daddy LOL, loved him in this.

'0)That's why I stopped posting on 'What did you watch...', at times felt like some sick exhibicionist.

Anyway, Tarantino is amongst few must see directors (add Haneke, Lynch, Woo...), even if there is occasional turd. In books I have same relationship with Stephen King, regardless him going downwards since around 1991, keep buying all his stuff. THere is always hope.

Yeah but its sans spoilers, so people can still reply if not seen aka you LOL.Anyway c'mon you know this forum is a dead end LOL.

Dont get me worng im not a cowboys and Indians man, but Spaghetti Westerns and Django itself were always about crime and criminals, the anti hero movies.

Django I dont think people would see as an anti hero, due to his Background and what Slaves endure in this movie.

Thats cool, but I question as to whay he called it Django?

If he had not called it Django, it would have just been a Tarantino western, the fact it is and mixed with Tarantinos love for spaghetti westerns, made me think the film would be one thing whern in fact it was another.

I said on another thread I dont think Tarantino could make a proper Spagh western, because by in large they are not about dialogue, but atmosphere and music. Look how long it is before a single word is spoken in TGTBATU, and even then its a taciturn performance by most of the actors.

I dont think Tarantino can make that kind of movie, I dont think he should either this movie is great as it is, a Tarantino western, I just think using the name Django a mistake on his part, perhaps it started as one thing and became something else.

Either way you'll likely really enjoy this, it can be powerful at times and the performances of the 3 I Mentioned are worth watching for.

DJango himself for me was the most uninteresting character in the movie.

well Cam, i thought Django Unchained would have been a PERFECT title for a film about Django Reinhardt because when he was 18 his caravan caught fire, and as he was very badly injured he was told he would never be able to walk or play the guitar again! In fact the doctor wanted to amputate his paralysed right leg but he showed them all wrong by learning to walk with a cane and we all know he played that wicked guitar with only 3 fingers on his left hand! Unchained!

I can only hope some budding young film maker will make a film about him yet!

And no, i'd never heard of any Django movies before, but i'm a swing dancer so I hear a lot of Django!

I am bored of Tarantino now,it took me a couple of years to see Basterds which was ok,Death Proof must be one of the most disappointing films i have ever seen.A killer called Stunt Mike played by Kurt Russell kills chicks.Fast car,should have been perfect.Instead it was embarrassing drivel,clunky,boring dialogue,terrible performances.Spending what 40 mill to make a film look like a b picture????It didn't even follow the laws of the grindhouse.For me Tarantino when he first showed up was a shot in the arm,his cultural impact cannot be denied,i always remember first watching Fiction a great movie for its time.But now style is not enough.I need more....Sayin that i have not seen Django,another poster mentioned how he thought it was going to be in the tradition of westerns but it wasn't.I already have a sinking feeling.I have NOTHING against people who love his movies,any director that can generate buzz/excitement about going to the cinema is alright in my book.NO WAY would i put him up there with David Lynch or Haneke.....thats a bit steep.I'd place him with his class Fincher[who i prefer...Fight Club]Singer,O Russell...that ilk.Anyone see his interview on c4 news?I actually agreed with Quentin there,he is under no obligation to constantly justify his work,that smug interviewer......again a horrendous act of violence occurs and the powers that be have to point to films.Its the directors faults of course....not parents,not politicians....

I always hoped Woody Allen would do a film about Django Reinhardt. He's obviously got an affinity for the music and I loved Sweet and Lowdown about a fictional 30s jazz guitarist who considered himself the second greatest guitarist in the world after Reinhardt. Reinhardt's music is sublime and he makes one of two musicians I'd love to see films about, other being Leadbelly. In the meantime they'll sing and play their guitars on late summer nights :)

As for Tarantino's film I haven't seen it but in truth any enthusiasm I had for his films has long gone. I think he makes schizophrenic films that when structured purposefully as such work (Pulp Fiction) but otherwise they just remind me of an album filled with random covers. He's obviously a talented director but he desperately needs somebody like Roger Avery to make sure he keeps the story focused IMO, or at least structure it to his strengths.

"I actually agreed with Quentin there,he is under no obligation to constantly justify his work,that smug interviewer......again a horrendous act of violence occurs and the powers that be have to point to films.Its the directors faults of course....not parents,not politicians...."

I'm with you on this, I saw the interview and agree that Tarantino shouldn't have to have the violence discussion every time he releases a film. Especially as an 8 minute interview is not exactly going to give any time to have any real depth to a discussion that has been had many times before. Agree that Krishnan had the channel 4 "smug look" when he was asking his questions which is the sign of a journalist with an agenda, not someone that wants an open discussion about anything relevant.

Cheers Hanks.....that Krishnan bloke you could almost see him smiling beneath his hand,there is this whole culture of interviewers now who at times seem to believe they are more important then the subject they are interviewing.I am the last person who thinks famous people should be treated with synchophancy but as stated i agreed with Quentin.I also liked how he was explicit in saying that the interview was "a commercial for the movie".No messing round with that.As you say an 8 minute interview is hardly sufficient for a discussion on violence.Fishing for a soundbite,which they got.I get really annoyed with this ongoing "argument".Why society should be looking at Django Unchained for answers beyond entertainment is beyond me.If someone,a viewer cannot make a distinction between fantasy and reality they are pyschotic.Jeffrey Dahmers favourite movie was Empire Strikes Back,he watched it obsessively....are we going to ban Star Wars?These propoganda merchants fail to realise that a disturbed mind can read subtexts in a childs movie.Its so lame and it always happens after a horrendous act of madness/violence,simply diverting attention from the real issue of gunlaws,therapy,education.